Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Jan 7;41(6):1063–1071. doi: 10.1177/0148607115624087

Table 2b.

Studies of the Effect of CVC Type on Risk of Mechanical Complication during PN.

Study Study Design Population (Age) No. of Patients (Port vs. External CVC) Occlusion Risk (Port vs. External CVC) P-value
Bozzetti et al. Retrospective questionnaire All PN patients (20–89 y) 44 vs. 403 25% vs. 2% P = 0.001
Howard et al. Retrospective All PN patients (13–74 y) 27 vs. 48 0.1 vs. 0.3/1000 d NR
Cotogni et al. Prospective observational Adult patients with cancer (29–85 y) 72 vs. 45 0.8 vs. 0.2/1000 d NR
Present study Retrospective chart review Pediatric patients with cancer (0.5–24 y) 40 vs. 40 8.5 vs. 12.7/1000 d P = 0.35

PN, parenteral nutrition; CVC, central venous catheter; CLABSI, central line–associated bloodstream infection; NR, not reported; d, day; y, year. Where data were provided separately for the PN period, this is reported.